User talk:82.31.179.173

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jaq D. Hawkins

Please stop changing this article to read like a commercial. If you revert again, you will be up against the 3RV rule and may well find yourself banned. Use the talk page on the article if you wish to discuss this MrMarmite 13:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Marmite, please stop changing this article to a slightly incorrect slur. I have my suspicions who you are, but you've got your facts just wrong enough to fly under the vandalism rule. Just. If you want to discuss a compromise, like an adult, contact me on jdh_web@yahoo.com The entry as I've stated it, is fully correct and does not read like an advert. Internet stalking is actually prosecuatable.

Note: In case you should be a legitimate person, I have no idea how to use the talk page. If you're who I'm 99.9% sure you are, it doesn't matter as you only want to repeat the nonsense you got your threads deleted from MySpace for. Grow up. You'll notice I haven't mentioned the radio play yet, because it hasn't manifested yet. I don't say anything that isn't true.

New entry: As you continue stalking and posting scewed information, I've simply deleted the passage. I have also reported you. But as you no doubt started an account for the sole purpose of stalking me, you won't really care.

Jaq. "stalking"..good grief, I feel you are somewhat over reacting. Clearly you are not fully aware of the basics of Wikipedia. Firstly, you will see from my contributions that I have been editing for years. Furthermore, you should not really be editing your own entry. As for your comment "I have my suspicions who you are" I found hilarious..you seem to think people are out to get you. Trust me, I have nothing against you and wish you well with your book and film. MrMarmite 18:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

When riduculous nonsense additions are entered into story plot descriptions, malice is undeniable. Whether you are the guilty party is perhaps in question. But your insistense on portraying DD as far more relevant that the reality game show it is borders on libel when you slant it to make it look like a serious blow to the project. If you're really interested in facts, get them correct. As there is definitely someone making stupid changes on my IMDB page and other places as well as all links to this page, vandalism and stalking are demonstrated.

No I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia. I've never had an account here. But I am familiar with Libel as well as stalking laws. I am also familiar with how to use this childish behaviour to my advantage. L & S will spit nails when they work out they help the project in the end.

Could you be so kind as to let us know what part of my edit was so "riduculous" [sic] ? MrMarmite 15:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Once again, please stop editing the article about yourself. While you are of course free to remove actual libellous material, your last edit did much more than that, modifying sentences to add a positive spin. Please discuss any improvements you think the article needs on its talk page instead. -- DatRoot 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, you might want to comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Goblin_Trilogy , a discussion about whether the article should be deleted from wikipedia. Also Dance of the Goblins and Demoniac Dance are up for deletion discussion too, you can find the links to their discussions at the top of their respective articles.Merkinsmum 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also ,

Warning You may not be aware of this, but please now be advised that it is against policy of wikipedia to assume ownership of articles, verbally attack other editors, accusing them of ulterior motives, and make legal threats/claims against editors as you did above, the later of which is treated particularly seriously on wikipedia, and I suspect might merit a block by an admin if you do it again, without any further warnings.

Merkinsmum 20:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea how the talk pages work and have no time to look into it, I'm shooting next week. The only edits I've ever done have been to correct inaccuracies. For example, one that was changed back "Channing also runs courses online in writing magickal fiction, through the Arcanorium College." I changed to "runs courses on various occult subjects." There was only one on writing magical fiction, my next one is on Progression Spells. But you changed it back, so it is inaccurate. If you want accuracy, stop concerning yourself over whether you got the last edit and get your facts straight. And nobody takes courses from Denise Channing, they take them from Jaq D Hawkins.

So, putting a negative spin on something is ok, but a positive one is not? You asked for my thoughts, here they are: As only the first book of the series is released, the page for the series is not justified. By all means, delete it. Dance of the Goblins, despite is short first printing, is internatioanlly known and people in the US want it released there. Word of mouth on various fantasy groups and forums plus Deviant Art have spread the word, and after Saturday we will have some stills photos that are to be sent to various film trades. So, Wiki policy can decide that, I'm not bothered. The page about me should be under Jaq D Hawkins, I am internationally known by that name and Denise Channing is hardly known or likely to be.

But there have most certainly been vandals putting nonsense on pages for book descriptions and putting an extreme negative slant on the Dragon's Den information is potentially damaging, as well as technically inaccurate. Read the Wiki page on DD, not getting funding from them is the norm, not a blow. All I ever said was that it brought publicity to the project. That is an absolutely true and provable statement. The publicity continues.

And no, I haven't started any of the pages that have anything to do with me. I wouldn't know how. I was a complete technophobe not so long ago. I'd love to know who did start the main page about me.

I didn't change any edit of yours back as far as I know- the only one I changed about the College was the one that implied you were involved in founding it alongside Carroll (when there are no sources stating that), as opposed to teaching a course there. There are numerous editors on wikipedia, some of whom have contributed to these articles and reverted what they viewed as misleading edits by you, they are not all one person, but that's neither here nor there. Just don't have a go at other editors and claim 'libel' etc. I have said that your article should be called Jaq D. Hawkins, as that is the name by which you are most well known to the public due to your books etc., that would make all mention of the courses under that name, if you want to agree with me feel free to comment on the article's talk page.

"It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself (see above about unconscious biases). You should let others do the writing.

Contributing material or making suggestions on the article's talk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it if you still want to make the changes yourself."

See WP:AB- if you scroll down a little it has guidelines about how to edit a page about you that already exists. It is best to discuss any edits on the talk page before you make them, so you would discuss on Talk:Denise Channing. And no, if you look through the page history any descriptions of you that were overly negative have also been removed. If you dislike having a page about yourself here it can probably be removed following a deletion debate, if you wanted it gone your wishes might well be enough to lead it to be deleted. I can go ahead and start one, if you wish. Bearing in mind that anyone can edit articles, so sometimes an article here will suffer vandalism and depictions of the subject which they might find unpleasant- until those changes are reverted. If you have a few people, as you implied to Marmite above, who are pretty keen to alter your reputation in a way which you might not wish- trolls, enemies or whatever you like to call them - you might like to consider that they may alter the page (as you suspect they've been doing.) No I don't necessarily believe you started the page but you probably have the option to get it taken down and end it if you would like. Just something you might like to consider.Merkinsmum 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As to how to use the talk page- edit just like this page. You can find a link to it at the bottom of the Denise Channing] page, where one of the links is to 'discuss' the page. Or click on Talk:Denise Channing, scroll to the bottom for the most recent comments, and write away.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Page has been moved back to Jaq.:)Merkinsmum (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few comments on the talk page then. If you want accurate information, I'm the best source considering it's my life.

Getting the page taken down is what the MySpace stalker wanted. And doing that would actually compromise other pages, like the one on Chaos Magic. But I do prefer it stays as Jaq D Hawkins. It's appropriate by wiki's own standards, because it is the name I am known by. Many friends who know my real name also call me Jaq. I also never wrote anything that was an advert. A statement that slants the DD information as if it were a blow to the project is implying an inaccurate perspective. It was a laugh, a longshot that would bring publicity regardless. There have been more serious funding efforts going on before during and after. It was the lottery ticket you buy and forget about, and a hell of a lot of fun doing. Pity they cut all the fun bits, there was some good banter that never made the cut. But that's television, it's entertainment. People watch DD for the blood, and loads of them have bought my book now that they know it exists. ~ Jaq

No we can't take your word for things based on what you write here. What I mean is- this is a wikipedia thing, not my thing- how do we know it's you? Anyone can come on here and claim to be you and say what's the truth etc, your stalker could even do so. This is why wikipedia is not used as a source for any of the articles. Well your view of what happened on DD differs from absolutely everyone else's. But if you notice what's happening, if anyone adds extra disparaging stuff, it is being removed. The entries are being kept to 'she went on DD, but didn't win/the dragon's didn't take her up on it' or something along those lines. Which you can't deny is true. On wikipedia we don't use a tone like "in a bold move to attract more publicity" or whatever, which is praising your actions, instead we try to just report the facts. As it stands with the version being maintained as just a sentence or 2 saying you went on but didn't win, that is very forgiving towards you as it doesn't include what blogs, forums etc say about the show.Merkinsmum (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Try IMDB message board, that's been great fun. Yes, anyone could impersonate me or any other person written about here. But I did invite you to write to me at the email address which is posted on my website. If you had asked through there, I could have pointed out the outdated reference to Anton and saved you getting something wrong.

I'm catching on that there is a culture of people who frequent wiki and do updates and write articles. I'm a bit of a pedant myself so I can respect that. But if something is written about me that is wrong, I am entitled to correct it. Like the pic from my latest book. It doesn't matter to the state of the world or even my own reputation if the pic is on the front or back of the book, but the pedant in me sees it written wrong and reflexively changes it. When someone changes it back to the wrong information just to get the last edit in, I do think unkind thoughts. But I've worked out that you're not the vandal (although there has definitely been one) and appreciate that you're removing the disparaging comments. What I've seen on forums is an interesting polarity, I have a lot of people expressing outrage at the nastiness of the two dragons that ironically I wasn't interested in (ref my pre-interview). I tell them the same thing as I tell the others, that's what they do. It's what the show is about. It served its purpose. DD has new sacrifices now. Fresh blood on the stage. It's all just television. ~ Jaq

I have to just leave a quick note to say thanks for coming to the talk pages and I hope all issues have been or will be sorted out. Good luck with the filming next week! -- DatRoot 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict- dat got in there as I was composing:) )

Wiki is not for emailing you for news, it's for finding WP:RS sources for things. I think you misunderstood the context of my comment about Anton- it wasn't on your article it was on the article's talk page, for discussing things that might improve the page. You said yourself your name has changed several times, you don't have an everyday name by which you're known more publicly quite as much as other people do. Anyway, glad you realise I'm not a vandal lol, no doubt a few were attracted by the DD prog (rightly or wrongly). If you look back at the page history you will see those making the most persistent and strongest destructive remarks on actual articles , don't have a username, they just have IP addresses. They're just surfing around the net and not long term contributors to wikipedia with their own userpage. As to wikipedia, it's a game, which as you play it more, can become addictive lolMerkinsmum (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So I see. ;) No time for new addictions right now though. I'm just dropping in during my usual email/forum travels to see what's added and answer questions at this point. The trolls seem to have got bored, but you can bet the MySpace ones will be back every time anything significant happens with this project. One of them has a serious obsession problem. Sort of an Internet Mark David Chapman. ;) ~ Jaq